I offer the following which is on a number of web sites since I think it offers ideas that need to be discussed right now. I think its stated source is correct:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There is also a fascinating comment on the Guardian website by ‘Teebs’ – basically suggesting Cameron’s resignation is really a heads he wins, tails you lose political masterstroke, which will keep us in the EU in spite of the leave vote. I think it has even more merit than the Credit Suisse version:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/25/brexit-live-emergency-meetings-eu-uk-leave-vote#comment-77205935
I just read this
Looks like Teebs and I are on a wavelength
That’s an interesting analysis-I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I would guess that the financial sector had a good deal to do with this. They want to carry on selling dodgy deals to EU countries and raking in massive profits from the suffering of populations. No suprise that Goldman Sachs was so ‘for’ remain -Credit Suisse probaly played their part.
If the financil sector doesn’t want something to happen -it doesn’t happen
Fascinating!
I think we can make it a lot simpler if we call for a GE and the left unites around a Pro-EU platform. That requires, of course, that the left can unite…
A big if
I’m inclined to agree,
I just listened to any questions on R4 and Ken Clarke was ridiculing Chris Grayling and whoever the UKIP buffoon was and was getting a very enthusiastic reception from the audience,
Ken quite easily makes the ultra right look like the bunch of right wing nut jobs they truly are and points out their plans for Brexit are complete gibberish,
it’s all very well winning the referendum to leave but nobody wants to press the article 50 button or take responsibility for negotiating,
the UK commissioner resigning today is another indication that nobody in their right mind wants anything to do with Brexit,
Labour are disappearing up their own fundament and I think Monday the Conservatives will proceed to disappear up their own fundament too,
it really is the most spectacular farce,
the only winners are popcorn manufacturers, sit back and enjoy their agony,
the referendum was a stupid idea, it was proposed by stupid people to ask a stupid question of a frankly stupid/stupefied electorate who replied with the only possible answer, a stupid one!
we will now spend months wrangling about how to Brexit and after exhausting every possible option come to the conclusion it was a bloody stupid idea in the 1st place!
Clarke has played his role in the ascendancy of neo-liberalism, I’ve no time for him.
1)1 December 2015, received £10,000 plus VAT and cost of a single business class Eurostar ticket, hotel accommodation and other incidental expenses, for speaking at a RBS Markets and International Banking Client Dinner at the Intercontinental Amstel Hotel in Amsterdam.
2)Payment of £7,500 plus VAT expected for a speaking engagement on 10 March 2016 at the Four Seasons Hotel, Chalky Lane, Dogmersfield, Hampshire. One night’s hotel accommodation and incidental expenses are also to be reimbursed. Payer: Deutsche Bank AG,
3)Payment of £10,000 plus VAT expected for a speaking engagement on 17 March 2016 at the Hotel d’Angleterre, Copenhagen. The cost of a return Business Class flight to Copenhagen, one night’s accommodation and incidental expenses is also to be reimbursed. Payer: Royal Bank of Scotland Markets & International Banking,
4)11 June 2015, received £10,000 plus VAT from Credit Suisse Securities (Europe Limited), One Cabot Square, London E14 4QJ, for a speaking engagement at The Grove Hotel, Watford, Hertfordshire, arranged through Specialist Speakers, The Old Factory Office, 8 Hawley Road, Hinckley, Leics LE10 0PR. Hours (including briefing, preparation and travel time): 6 hrs.
Won’t bore you with any more….you get the picture.
They obviously thought he was worth it
More fool them
From what I heard, Boris is planning to hold an election when/if he is appointed. It seems to me though the key point to hold an election is when the terms (following negotiation) are placed on the table and it is time to accept or reject them.
This raises the distinct possibility that there might be two potential sets of terms that Europe offers us. 1) Uk can keep free trade if they keep free movement 2) Restrictions in free trade that reflect restrictions in free movement. Boris would then have to choose which of these options he prefers, given that 1) would basically abrogate the whole thrust of his campaign. It seems vital to me at this point, the decision should then be put in front of the electorate. This is what kept on happening with the greek bailouts.
I also don’t see how Boris can avoid this seeing as he has been such a keen champion of democracy and sovereignty recently.
Not sure if the link works if you are not a subscriber to the FT but there is a more detailed story plus a link to the original Credit Suisse report at http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/06/20/2166970/brexit-theory-vs-practice-charted/
There is much talk amongst progressives of “mending our democracy” and “mending our etc. etc.”
(which I largely agree with but don’t have good answers to)
What seems to be missing from the debate (and perhaps the flowchart) is “mending our Europe” and “mending European democracy”
Why has the establishment been so determined to railroad the European members into political union?
Is this political union for their benefit or ours?
How does political union benefit the member states and which ones does it benefit?
Perhaps it is the attempt to force political union on the member states that will break Europe apart.
If it plays it’s cards right will Britain be able to cut a deal similar to the Swiss?
Would this divorce settlement be to everyone’s benefit?
I asked on a previous blog “[a] When did the populations of Europe vote on this political union and [b] what percentage of each country actually want it?”
I found a disappointing answer to [a]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union
On [b] I have little idea beyond news and online snippets of Frexit, Gexit and Nexit etc.
Post Brexit, the Eurocrats are talking tough to quash these movements but I can’t help feeling that Europe need to reform if it is to survive. The disenfranchisement is surely not peculiar to Britain.
Just some random musings in no real order.
I think it is arrogant of the UK to now think it can wait four months for a new prime minister to initiate article 50.
Nobody knows how article 50 gets invoked. Everybody thinks it’s a letter to Juncker. Could the EU invoke article 50 as we had a referendum of which the outcome was close but clear? Sort of overriding a Dear John “letter”.
Gove and Johnson and others seem to be saying there’s no need to be hasty on article 50. Could that really mean never actually invoke it just have the threat of it?
I’d agree with David Cameron – why should he do it. Let a Brexiter do all the donkey work etc.
The amount of back peddling that appears to be going on. What happens when you lie I guess – start lowering expectations.
That some people voted exit because they didn’t think it would actually happen. Wow.
There appears to be some Bregret going on. The petition calling for a 2nd referendum now has twice as many signatures as the winning brexit margin has.
hi Richard – yes it is authentic CSuisse research from “Credit Suisse Playbook” dated June 17. The fixed income research analysis team prepared it. They go on to say after explaining their diagram:
“Making a crude estimate from that chart, we judge there is a 70% probability of Britain leaving the EU after a vote to leave. This was calculated by assigning probabilities to each split in the pathway and accumulating the total. Those probabilities are subjective, and others may assign different probabilities.”
Interestingly they highlight the influence of “a swing in public opinion” post-vote several times.
Personally I am hugely concerned about how Labour, and possible coalition partners, react.
We saw evidence of an active ‘Labour for Leave’ campaign in my part of London (leaflets, canvassing) and they were surely prominent elsewhere in the UK – so where do those elements align if a different organisation of the left must come about?
If Labour, organisationally, is indeed about 70% for staying in Europe, then how much trouble might the 30% create? Especially as there must be many Labour grassroots sympathisers in the North and Wales who see things very differently and who voted Leave.
Good questions
On this I have no answes
Labour needs to take this on board and stare it in the face:
“Anyone with a genuine understanding of the political and economic machinations of the EU, knows that the institution operates as a bureaucratic/technocratic dictatorship, working against democratic justice, social justice and economic justice. It is a primary vehicle for the neoliberal project and modern finance capitalism.
As such, it is more than partly responsible for inflicting on its people financialisation, debt deflation, economic crisis, austerity, “free” trade agreements, mass privatisation and the destruction of the social safety net, and the likely end state of neoliberalism: neo-feudalism, in which private debts, interest payments and rent-seekers swallow up developed economies, de-industrialising them through the ravages of globalisation, wealth extraction and debt-peonage. It must share responsibility for failing to protect the interests of the global 99%, or perhaps more accurately the 99.9%.”
See: http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-left-should-celebrate-brexit-the-uk-just-kicked-neoliberalism-in-the-nuts/
I don’t agree with the premise of the article that the ‘UK kicked neo-liberalism in the nuts’-the vote was based on inchoate ‘thinking’ and a general mood of misdirected dissatisfaction whose roots Labour never properly explained.
If the EU changed in line with your recommendations then we would remain, otherwise I thinks it’s wise to focus on the brexit challenges ahead and show the EU what a sovereign progressive Britain can do.